News:

Good day, denizens of OC.net! Per our tradition, the forum will shut down for Clean Monday, beginning around 9pm Sunday evening (2/18) and ending around 9pm Monday evening (2/19). In the spirit of the coming Forgiveness Sunday, I ask you to forgive me for the sins I have committed against you. At the end of Great and Holy Week, the Forum will also shut down for Holy Friday and Holy Saturday (times TBA).

Are we all in agreement that this is Orthodox? pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.Perhaps minor improvements, but a great prototype?

This is probably my favourite italian chapel , but I know there are more out there to be discovered.

What better model could we have for the western rite of today ?Sure, a few details could be added, perhaps it is a bit rustic..but the basic style..good?

« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 02:17:40 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

1. Portraying Christ as a lamb is specifically denounced by what is considered as the fundamental canon on iconography: Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. We are to portray Christ in the fullness of His revelation, as God and Man, reflecting His divine and human natures, and not in symbolic form such as a lamb. Similarly, painting the Holy Spirit as a dove outside of icons of the Baptism of Christ is similarly contrary to canon. The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Theophany depiction is proper, as it is in the form of a dove that the Spirit manifested Itself, at that particular occasion. Likewise, the Spirit manifested as tongues of fire at Pentecost, so such depiction is proper to icons of that feast, and that feast only.

Are we all in agreement that this is Orthodox? pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.Perhaps minor improvements, but a great prototype?

This is probably my favourite italian chapel , but I know there are more out there to be discovered.

What better model could we have for the western rite of today ?Sure, a few details could be added, perhaps it is a bit rustic..but the basic style..good?

I get a message that the plugins are out of date.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

1. Portraying Christ as a lamb is specifically denounced by what is considered as the fundamental canon on iconography: Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. We are to portray Christ in the fullness of His revelation, as God and Man, reflecting His divine and human natures, and not in symbolic form such as a lamb. Similarly, painting the Holy Spirit as a dove outside of icons of the Baptism of Christ is similarly contrary to canon. The Holy Spirit is not a dove by nature. The Theophany depiction is proper, as it is in the form of a dove that the Spirit manifested Itself, at that particular occasion. Likewise, the Spirit manifested as tongues of fire at Pentecost, so such depiction is proper to icons of that feast, and that feast only.

Agree. One more brief comment that it is also permissible to depict a dove for the festival of Annunciation in proximity to the Virgin Mary. But otherwise, spot on especially with depicting Christ as the Lamb instead of the Theanthropos.

It is I have to say somewhat ironic that there seem to be an endless array of details in 1st millenium latin christianity thay are nitpicked as "non-orthodox" by the Orthodox. Because this is something latins often do vice versa, which i find somewhat annoying. It certainly points to why there continues to be a schism between them, even though they have grown apart even more now than in the past, there were we clearly see peculiar minor differences existing quite early.

Unfortunately for me, I am very fond of the portrayal of Christ as the lamb of God. I think that is largely because it is became a unique cultural feature of the west. Although I am not completely opposed to abandoning it. However, it does not sit well with me do that without a good reason. I would have to understand if this is to be a pre-requesite to all iconography in latin rite Orthodox churches today and why it is to be so.

This is something that I had not been able to understand about the council of trullo and subsequent ban of it from eastern iconography.It is quite evident that the lamb of God portrayal originated first in the east long before that council, as there are artifacts surviving from the 5th to 7th centuries which show it being portrayed, one I remember was a beautiful processional cross made in constantinople. The book "The Glory of Byzantium" portrays this cross in it. If there was a problem existing with it's portrayal was it a local problem or something that was a problem for the entire church?

What I would like to know is how important that council was for the latin rites, is the council of trullo to be regarded as one of the ecumenical councils? If it is not an ecumenical council, but a local council, can it really be said to be binding on latin customs?

I do however admire the fact that the trullo council helped codify proper iconography for the eastern standards, most of which probably ought to have been also accepted by the latin west to better protect it's art from humanism and drastic individual innovation.

Perhaps one the problem with the symbol of the lamb of God is that it may seems odd to venerate it.Perhaps it seems to conflict the idea of veneration.

I have no explanations for any lack of halo, I thought they were there, they usually are.

Thank you all for the response.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

There is an irony in that there seems to be an endless array of details in 1st millenium latin christianity thay are nitpicked as "non-orthodox" by the Orthodox. Because this is something latins often do vice versa, which i find somewhat annoying. It certainly points to why there continues to be a schism between them, even though they have grown apart even more now than in the past, there were we clearly see peculiar minor differences existing quite early. It probably is a healthy holy reaction to made to respect ones own respective patrimony and purity of the church.

Unfortunately for me, I am very fond of the portrayal of Christ as the lamb of God. I think that is largely because it is became a unique cultural feature of the west. Although I am not completely opposed to abandoning it. However, it does not sit well with me do that without a good reason. I would have to understand if this is to be a pre-requesite to all iconography in latin rite Orthodox churches today and why it is to be so.

This is something that I had not been able to understand about the council of trullo and subsequent ban of it from eastern iconography.It is quite evident that the lamb of God portrayal originated first in the east long before that council, as there are artifacts surviving from the 5th to 7th centuries which show it being portrayed, one I remember was a beautiful processional cross made in constantinople. The book "The Glory of Byzantium" portrays this cross in it. If there was a problem existing with it's portrayal was it a local problem or something that was a problem for the entire church?

What I would like to know is how important that council was for the latin rites, is the council of trullo to be regarded as one of the ecumenical councils? If it is not an ecumenical council, but a local council, can it really be said to be binding on latin customs?

I do however admire the fact that the trullo council helped codify proper iconography for the eastern standards, most of which probably ought to have been also accepted by the latin west to better protect it's art from humanism and drastic individual innovation.

Perhaps one the problem with the symbol of the lamb of God is that it may seems odd to venerate it.Perhaps it seems to conflict the idea of veneration.

I have no explanations for any lack of halo, I thought they were there, they usually are, that also would be normal practice for the west at that time.

Misuse of the dove in early western art seems to be comparatively rare. I hadn't noticed that before it was pointed out here.So that point is one that can be agreed on more easily as a mistake.

Thank you all for the response.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 04:20:50 PM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

What I would like to know is how important that council was for the latin rites, is the council of trullo to be regarded as one of the ecumenical councils? If it is not an ecumenical council, but a local council, can it really be said to be binding on latin customs?

The Quinisext Council in trullo is indeed an Ecumenical Council, binding on the entire Church. However, history shows that the church of Rome greatly delayed its acceptance, and did not accept all its rulings.

Quote

It is quite evident that the lamb of God portrayal originated first in the east long before that council, as there are artifacts surviving from the 5th to 7th centuries which show it being portrayed, one I remember was a beautiful processional cross made in constantinople. The book "The Glory of Byzantium" portrays this cross in it.

Of course such imagery existed prior to that council, but it doesn't make them right. Canon 82 came into being to address the Christological deficiency of such symbolic images.

Quote

Unfortunately for me, I am very fond of the portrayal of Christ as the lamb of God.

Sentimentality is not a substitute for proper theology. Iconography and hymnography must express Truth, not pious opinion.

One more brief comment that it is also permissible to depict a dove for the festival of Annunciation in proximity to the Virgin Mary.

Not true. Neither scripture, nor the wider Holy Tradition describes in visual form how the Holy Spirit appeared at the Annunciation. A ray coming from heaven, without a dove within it, is about as far as one can go. And there are many, many icons which do not bear this motif.

If these people on the forum were in power they would probably knock down San Vitala in Ravenna only for the fact that it has an blatant Agnus Dei mosaic in it. It is a fairly common image throughout the West, deeply ingrained from the earliest times.

« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 03:12:06 AM by Christopher McAvoy »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

The depiction of Christ in cryptic form is found in the earliest art of the catacombs. Christ was also represented as a fish, from the acronym for Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, IXΘYC, which is also the Greek word for fish. The use of such non-representational images was quite understandable, given the severity of the persecution of Christians by the Romans in the first three centuries AD. Once the persecutions were over, and iconographic canons could be developed, such symbolic portrayals were decreed to be unsound, as proclaimed in Canon 82 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council. It recognizes the existence of the lamb of God imagery, but explains why it is deficient in properly proclaiming the revelation of God as Incarnate:In certain reproductions of venerable images, the Forerunner is pictured pointing to the lamb with his finger. This representation was adopted as a symbol of grace. It was a hidden figure of that true Lamb who is Christ our God, shown to us according to the Law. Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law.Therefore, in order to expose to the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His passion, His saving death and, thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

The necessity of representing Christ in human, not symbolic, form is a direct rebuttal to Arianism, Nestorianism, and other heresies which did not regard Christ as fully human and fully God. To continue portraying Him as a lamb denies the fullness of the Incarnation.

Imagery which predated this Canon is of historic value, but is deficient in expressing Truth. There is no excuse for any Orthodox iconographer these days to be unaware of the existence and meaning of this canon. East versus West has nothing to do with it.

If one has to end the usuage of the "lamb of God", or modify the image, to be allowed in an Orthodox Church,that would be a small price to pay for being part "of the true faith".

For myself I would certainly obey whatever the bishop says, though, I am as yet uncertain that the canons of the council of trullo were ment to apply specifically to the latin church, where arian heresies, such as islam, were less prevalent.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

For myself I would certainly obey whatever the bishop says, though, I am as yet uncertain that the canons of the council of trullo were ment to apply specifically to the latin church, where arian heresies, such as islam, were less prevalent.

Last time I checked, the "latin church", now known as the Roman Catholic church, recognizes the Quinisext Council as ecumenical. So your uncertainty is misplaced.

To illustrate that even in the east, rules may have been violated, here are two later period "Lamb of God" paintings, corresponding to the early type, made in traditional Orthodox countries.

And? Images of God the Father, and other images the Orthodox Church has denounced as uncanonical, are being painted to this day. Still don't make them right. It simply shows that iconographers need to be properly trained and educated. If a hymnographer wrote a prayer or troparion or akathist which went against Orthodox doctrine and theology, what do you think should happen? So why should iconographers be held to a lesser standard?

"Quinisext Council (= Fifth and Sixth) or Council in Trullo (692) has not been accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Since it was mostly an administrative council for raising some local canons to ecumenical status, establishing principles of clerical discipline, addressing the Biblical canon, and establishing the Pentarchy, without determining matters of doctrine, the Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider it to be a full-fledged council in its own right, instead it is considered to be an extension of the fifth and sixth councils."

Additionally there are 5 more "Lamb of God" images in various eastern orthodox chruches shown in this marvelous dissertation by a Rumanian here:

Some of them here are so harmonious and almost identical to the lamb of God's I see in the early latin west, i really love the one at Voronet Monastery!

Added link to thread that the quote comes from. Please make sure you source your quotes!-Arimethea

« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 11:09:39 PM by arimethea »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Alright after reading further, I see with no uncertainty that the trullo council was part of the 5th/6th ecumenical council.I've always heard of that council from time to time, but I never stoped to consider too many details about it, such as whether it was actually fully ecumenical until now.

Because that has always been the tradition in the East, and, in the West, Trullo has enjoyed similar or close-to-similar recognition at various times. For example, according to the Liber Pontificalis, Pope Constantine I provisionally accepted the canons of Trullo in 710; and near the end of the same century, Hadrian I referred to canon 82 of Trullo as a canon of the "sexta sancta Synodo." Then, of course, there is Hadrian's famous letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople, in which Hadrian accepts all of Trullo's canons as belonging to the Sixth council.

Much later on, Cardinal Humbert, ever irascible, claimed the Trullan canons were never and would never be accepted in the West, but, not long thereafter, Gratian included a good number of them in his collection, and the original, official, Roman Catholic printing of the decrees of the Sixth Holy Council, published in Paris in 1540, include Trullo's canons.

I could go on. In particular, in the last 30 years, there have been many official Papal documents, e.g. even an Apostolic Constitution, that recognize the ecumenicity of Trullo. As Pope John Paul II wrote in Sacri Canones, Canon 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council demands that all Christians recognize Trullo's canons. Incidentally, logic kind of demanded that he and the Roman church recognize this fact, since they were promulgating an Eastern Code of Canon Law that depended in parts directly on Trullo.

nevertheless, if the councils promulgations concerning images were accepted within the Latin west, why did the lamb of God continue to be used nearly every decade for the next 500 years, especially even during the pontificates of the two above mentioned Popes of the 8th/9th centuries in Rome itself? Probably the Popes of the 9th c. themselves were either unaware of that particular law or did not think they were violating it?

Quite odd..

Added link to thread that the quote comes from. Please make sure you source your quotes!-Arimethea

« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 11:09:04 PM by arimethea »

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

Don't forget that many parts of the Orthodox world, such as Romania, Ukraine, many parts of Greece, and even Russia came under considerable western influence from particularly the 15th-17thC onwards. This, briefly, is how non-Orthodox elements found their way into Orthodox iconography.

Whether Canon 82 and all it represented was accepted by the church of Rome, it certainly was not put into practice. The development of the full-blown naturalistic and passionate religious art of the European Renaissance is testament to the abandoning or ignoring of this canon, and, indeed, of any adherence to iconographic principles, which emphasize dispassion and other-worldliness.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Are some of these icons non-canonical? Yes. Many things are non-canonical. We still do them ALL THE TIME. Does anyone here think that Christ is fully God, fully man and fully lamb? No? All right then. Neither does anyone believe that God the Spirit became incarnate of a virgin dove. This is all symbolic, yet theologically didactic. I was in a church the other day which had the Holy Spirit depicted as a dove above the altar. Does that make people think the Holy Spirit is a literal dove? No. For me, it was a beautiful reminder of the decent of the Holy Spirit upon the Gifts during the Liturgy.

In the same way, the depiction of the Agnus Dei is very ancient. Does that make it "canonical"? No, however it can be didactic if used properly. I don't believe it's good for an icon to have St. John pointing to Christ and saying "Behold the lamb of God!" and for Christ to be depicted as a Lamb. That's a little too confusing. However, to simply DEPICT him as a lamb, I think, is different. No, it isn't strictly iconography and I don't think it should be venerated in the same way. However, it remains very theologically sound when properly understood (just like everything else about our Faith).

I think the chapel is very beautiful and I would love to worship there. My first thought, however, was how eastern it looked! Apparently, it is so early that it was built before the West developed their own artistic styles. Nothing wrong with that, though, of course! Thanks for sharing.

Your Local Latinizer,

BtR.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I do not believe that in history, in either west, east or anywhere, that the lamb of God image was venerated, in the manner where the human likeness of Christ is. I would definitely not expect to see it on a panel, only more as a symbol in church architecture. Especially near an altar where the holy sacrifice occurs.

Once one has explored enough early iconography they are able to tell details that relay subtle differences.

I remember a highly educated young greek man visiting the country who was well studied in iconography whom i showed a picture of a similar italian chapel once, of the exact same period, commenting that it was to him "entirely" different from byzantine iconography, and far too western "corrupion of the pure byzantine style".

Than I took the same image to a latin papal catholic cleric rather ignorant of art history he said "oh thats really neat to see eastern iconography in the west", but thats not really our tradition."

This gave me an endless source of amusal.

For the modern westerner, it is too eastern.For the modern easterner, in some cases, it is too western.For those willing to look outside the box..it is just right.

That is in some cases the issue with western rite orthodoxy, why it is controversial.For me that is why it is great, because it moderates itself to something that is unique, yet still, Orthodox.

It is like todays two political parties, two extremes, which need moderating.

Logged

"and for all who are Orthodox, and who hold the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, remember, O Lord, thy servants" - yet the post-conciliar RC hierarchy is tolerant of everyone and everything... except Catholic Tradition, for modernists are as salt with no taste, to be “thrown out and trampled under foot

I have seen paintings umpteen times with Christ as the triumphant Lamb of God, depicted as holding up a Cross banner. It may not be suitable as an icon. However, it is quite stirring as mere non-iconic religious art.

Logged

My only weakness is, well, never mind

He said he had a horrible houseI looked in it and learnt to shut my mouth

Rome held out on this, for more than just the canon as relates to the depiction of Christ as the Lamb of God. The Synod in Trullo, also had canons that castigated Old Rome for the custom, that had become defacto a canon, that they would not elevate any man to the sub-diaconate, diaconate, or priesthood, who was still living with his wife as husband and wife. The Synod also made ecumenical the Canons of the Synod of Laodiciea, especially those that related to the Consecration of the Holy Mysteries in a Full Liturgy on Weekdays in Lent, this was also objected to by Rome. There was also a Canon of Trullo, which in complete concord with the full 85 Apostolic Canons (as opposed to the truncated 50 Canons that had been translated into Latin from the Greek by Dionysius Exiguus in the 5th/6th century, it's possible he may have not have a complete version or only a partial manuscript of the Apostolic Canons), prohibits the actual fasting, that is, the complete refusal of all food, until after the Ninth Hour, and even then only bread, water, dry food, etc (fasting season foods), that was practiced in Rome on the four Ember Saturdays, instead, only full fasting was allowed on Holy Saturday (as it was still the practice of that time, to celebrate the Holy Saturday Liturgy after the Ninth Hour, and prior to Vespers, thus, in order to take Holy Communion, one would have to fast, as well as the obvious meaning of the sorrow this fasting is meant to invoke in a person for when the God-Man Christ perfectly fulfilled the Sabbath); while abstinence from meat and dairy was the tradition of the church in all the fasting season, Sunday through Saturday, it was not in the concord with the decrees of Trullo, to allow fasting from all food until after the Ninth hour on Saturdays.

Thus, there were a number of issues of praxis that were being addressed by the Synod in Trullo, many of them were Roman. Many of them, as the Canon states (if I recall), state that, that while the previous images were not evil, horrible, monstrous, or necessarily painted with some heretical intention, I assume, the Canon says that the Church prefers ones that are not such. Thus, what may have been acceptable prior, is not acceptable now. It does not mean what was done in the past was neccesarily evil, but, it says:

Having thus welcomed these ancient figures and shadows as symbols of the truth transmitted to the Church, we prefer today grace and truth themselves, as a fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, in order to expose to the sight of all, at least with the help of painting, that which is perfect, we decree that henceforth Christ our God be represented in His human form, and not in the form of the ancient lamb. We understand this to be the elevation of the humility of God the Word, and we are led to remembering His life in the flesh, His passion, His saving death and, thus, deliverance which took place for the world.

Various popes, as I recall, gave varying degrees of assent, with phrases such as "as far as they are in accord to the customs of the Holy Roman Church", or St. Hadrian of Rome seeming complete assent to the decrees. A Spanish Council accepted all the decrees, but, the caused a great degree of controversy of the issues in Spain, and St. Bede the Venerable decries the Synod as one meant to be anti-Roman, etc, etc. However, despite the objections issued by one Orthodox Patriarchate (Rome), as well as some saints in that Patriarchate (St. Bede the Venerable), this itself does not constitute a reason in itself. Beside, even if one argues that Orthodox Church of Rome could 'hold out' on ratifying the decrees (as seemed like was show by the a 'compromise' or 'delaying' action reached decades, or centuries, the date escapes me, at a smaller meeting at Nicea sometime later), the Church of Rome would essentially loose it's vote after the Schism, assuming the 'holding out' argument can be considered a legitimate argument. After that period, any resumption of person wanted to resume a station in the Orthodox Church, using the old Western rite used before the Schism, etc, would have to comply with the current Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church, which means, the issues at Trullo, which caused a lot of praxis controversy, and of course, the later uncanonical, illegal, and later heretical filioque addition are removed. If modern proponents of the Western rite have no problem accepting the Synod of Trullo in its canon that castigate the enforcement of a celibate priesthood, and the Eastern Churches castigation and condemnation of the filioque, and then the later agrandizements of Papal authority, then surely, it would seem, that the issue of Christ depicted in the symbolic form of the Lamb of God, would not be a large question.

If these people on the forum were in power they would probably knock down San Vitala in Ravenna only for the fact that it has an blatant Agnus Dei mosaic in it. It is a fairly common image throughout the West, deeply ingrained from the earliest times.

Too broad of a brush my friend, please be more specific. Yes we have our brand of 'intellectual iconoclasts' but few who would be so brazen and disrespectful.